Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/324/2019

Sri. K.B. Ramesh S/o K. Bhyrappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Regional Manager, SBI General Insurance Co.,Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.P.S. Sathyanarayana Rao

29 May 2023

ORDER

                                                                                           COMPLAINT FILED ON 09/05/2019

                                                                                            DISPOSED ON: 29/05/2023

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHITRADURGA.

CC.NO:324/2019

DATED: 29^th May 2023

PRESENT: Kum. H.N. MEENA, B.A., LL.B., PRESIDENT

                  Sri. H.JANARDHAN, B.A.L., LL.B., MEMBER       

 

                    

……COMPLAINANT/S	Sri K.B. Ramesh W/o K. Bhyrappa, Aged about years, Agriculturist, Guddadaneralakere Village, Mathodu Hobli, Hosadurga Taluk, Chitradurga District, Karnataka State.   (Rep by Advocate Sri. P.S. Sathyanarayana)
V/S
.….OPPOSITE PARTY/S	1. The Regional Manager, S.B.1. General Insurance Co., Ltd., Rukmini Towers, 3/1, Platform Road, Sheshadripuram, Bangalore - 560 020.   (Rep by Advocate Sri. B.M. Ravichandra)   2. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Kanchipura Branch, Hosadu'ga Taluk.   (Rep by Advocate Sri. C.J. Lakshminarasimha)   3. The Joint Director of Agriculture, Agriculture Department, R.M.C. Yard Main Road, Chitradurga,   (Rep by Advocate Sri D.G.P.)

 

 

 

:JUDGEMENT:

 

Order Delivered by Hon’ble President, Kum. H.N. MEENA.

 

The complainant filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opponents. The complainant has prayed to direct the opponents to pay the insured amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant for the loss of crops. For issue an order to compensation of Rs.0.50 lakhs with 12% interest per annum towards the deficiency in service, dereliction of duties and unfair trade practice from the date of complaint till the date of its realization. Also to direct the opponents to pay Rs.30,000/- towards the loss of earning, mental agony cost of the proceedings and such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Commission deems fit to grant in the interest of Justice. 

 

2. BRIEF FACTS OF CASE:

   The complainant states in his complaint that, the complainant is an agriculturist and he owns 4-04 acres of land in Sy.No.5/2B/2 situated at Rangenahally Village, Mathodu Hobli, Hosadurga Taluk, Chitradurga District. Regularly the complainant is cultivating Horticulture Crops like Pomogranate, Coconut and Ragi Maize in her lands. The complainant has planted Pomogranate in her lands and for  that during 2016-17 the complainant paid Rs.10,492/- towards Agriculture Insurance premium amount for 4.04 acres vide application No. from the complainant under Pradhan Manthri Fasal Bhima Yojane (PMFBY) scheme year 2016-17 for pomegranate crop from opponent No.1. Unfortunately, due to failure of rain, crops have not grown, completely failed. As such, the complainant has to receive Rs.1,50,000/- towards Samrakshane Crop Insurance from Bank/Insurance Company.

 

 

3. Complainant further submits that, the complainant approached to OPs several times, but the OPs did not give any further reply. The complainant submitted written request letter to OP Bank. The opponent Bank without paying the insurance amount, did not give adequate reply. The complainant is a poor farmer and is facing a lot of financial difficulties. Hence this complaint.

 

4. After registered the complaint, notice issued by this Hon’ble Commission was served to the opponents. OP No.1 to 3 appeared through its counsels. Wherefore, opponent No.1 to 3 are filed their versions as follows.

 

5. The opponent No.1 stated in the version all allegations and averments levelled against the answering opposite party are denied save to those that are expressly and categorically admitted herein, further the complainant is put to strict proof as to rest of the contentions. That the complaint nowhere mentions the proposal number, which is one of the basic credentials to identify a policy issued under the PMFBY or RSWBCI scheme. In the absence of proposal number, the answering OP is not in a position to identify any details of the farmer/Complainant. Being so, it is impossible for the OP to find the individual famer details or to cross check the details or confirm the coverage. It is pertinent to mention that the complainant as per the list of documents forming part of the complaint states that 2 Xerox copy of the view proposal form and Back A/c form, however, the proposal copy nor proposal number is not filed/mentioned. Thus, left the answering OP clueless about the proposal under dispute. It shall amount to suppression of material information. On this score alone complaint is liable to be dismissed. Without answering OP tried to get the details based on the Adhar number of the complainant in the dedicated portal ‘samrakshane’ developed by the Government, which in an open source portal wherein the details of the insured farmers can be searched by general public. There are no details available against the complainant farmer with Aadhar Number 826080527322. The complainant has not filed the basic document/details like the Proposal No/Proposal Form. In its absence, the answering OP is clueless of any coverage issued as per the scheme to the complainant.

 

6. The opponent No.1 further submits that, the Government of Karnataka, Department of Agriculture vide their circular dated 07/06/2017 specifically instructed the banker and insurance agencies to use ‘Samrakshane’ for registering the claim and settlement of claim. Being so, the function of registration is solely with the bank, and if there is any errors/commissions/commissions by the bank then they are solely responsible to make good the loss for depriving the insurance cover.

 

7. The OP No.2 stated in the version that, the opponent is denied all the allegation made by the complainant against this opponent No.2 as false and the complainant is liable to put to strict proof of each and every allegations made I the complaint with relevant and cogent evidences and proofs beyond reasonable doubts. That the complaint filed by the complainant is mainly barred by law of limitation and the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party or non-joinder of necessary parties also. The complaint is not filed by all the Kathedars and Anubhavadars of the landed property since the land is stands in joint capacity. The complaint is filed by mis-joinder of the OP-2. Further it is submitted by OP-2 that the issuance of the Legal Notice by the complainant to the OP-2 as alleged by the complainant in the complaint is the matter of record and proof with evidence. None replying to the said legal notice by the OP-2 within time or after lapse of time or not replied to the same is purely bonafide and not intentional one.

 

8. Further submitted by the OP No.2 in the version that, OP-2 has not paid the crop insurance premium within time as per the guidelines of the Government of Karnataka as per the information given by the previous Branch Manager and also previous filed officer. The OP-2 has debited the crop insurance premium amount of Rs.10,492/- on 15/07/2017. The complainant has not furnished the proof of growing of Pomegranates i.e., Dalimbe Crops to the OP-2 at the time of submitting the application for crop insurance, as per the RTC copies of the complainant, there is no crops information of Dalimbe crop for the years 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19, the land of the complainant shows there are no crops information of the previous years and then shows the Ragi crops it is clearly deems that the complainant has not grown or trying to grow any Pomegranates i.e., Dalimbe Crops in his land.

 

9. Moreover, there is no any reports or information of the Revenue Authorities of Hosadurga Taluk, Chitradurga District in respect of the growing or grown of Dalimbe crops. Therefore, the complainant is eligible for reimbursement or return of Crop Insurance Premium collected by him but he is not entitled for any other reliefs. Since he has filed the complaint on false grounds without growing the Dalimbe crops by the complainant at the time submitting the claim application or application form for claiming the Crop Insurance. There is a gross negligence of the complainant, Hence, the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs and complaint of the complainant is to be dismissed with heavy costs.  

10. The OP No.3 stated in the version that, It is the duty to plan hobli-wise and gram panchayat-wise crop harvesting experiments under general crop survey and provide certified report of crop-wise crop-harvesting experiments to the insurance companies. And there is an opportunity to calculate and settle the crop insurance loss by considering only the yield observed on the basis of the crop harvesting experiments conducted by the State Government under the general crop estimation survey. In this way, according to Notification No: 34, it has been notified in the guideline that the insurance company will calculate the crop insurance loss compensation for all the crops for which the results of crop harvesting trials are available and settle the insured farmers. According to the guidelines, the Department of Agriculture is participating in the campaign for implementation of the Crop Insurance Scheme, and does not collect any crop insurance amount from the farmers and the insurance companies who have settled the crop insurance amount for crop loss compensation are settled to the farmers and cases registered with in the District Commission, the insurance companies who find that the farmers cannot be traced. The insurance companies concerned have deposited the sum insured in these cases in the ESCROW ACCOUNT of the Agriculture Department, Government of Karnataka. The insurance amount has already been transferred to the farmers who have reached the amount deposited. Further from 2018 till now no insurance company has deposited in government ESCROW ACCOUNT. Therefore, considering all these factors, the 3rd respondent has stated in their dispute that they should be acquitted as there is no liability and the insurance company is directly liable. Heard the arguments.

 

11. Now, the points that arise for our consideration for                   decision of above complaint are that:

1. Whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service on the part of OPs, on account of not settling the claim of complainant?

 

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed in the complaint?

 

3. Whether the complainant paid the insurance premium amount to the OP-2? And is the complainant entitled to the premium amount?

 

 

4. What order?

 

 

    12. On perusal of pleadings and the evidence of the complainant and our findings on the above points are as below:

 

Point No.1 & 2: In the Negative

Point No.3: In the Affirmative

Point No.4: As per the final order

 

:REASON:

13. Point No.1 & 2 : We have gone through the pleading of complaint and documents submitted by complainant. The complainant examined as PW-1 and got marked documents as
Ex.A-1 to A-5. Ex.A-1 is Copy of Aadhar Card, Ex.A-2 Bank pass book Xerox copy, Ex.A-3 is RTC copy, Ex.A-4 is Legal Notice & Ex.A-5 is Postal receipt. The opponent No.1 and 2 examined by way of affidavit but no documents has been filed. As per Ex.A.2 the complainant paid the insurance premium amount to OP-2. Hence, the complainant is a consumer of OPs. It is not in dispute that, the complainant is having agricultural lands he owns 4-04 acres of land in Sy.No.5/2B/2at Rangenahally Village, Mathodu Hobli, Hosadurga Taluk, Chitradurga District. The complainant is cultivating Horticulture Crops like Pomegranate, Coconut and Ragi Maize in her lands. The complainant has planted Pomegranate in her lands during year 2016-17 the complainant paid Rs.10,492/- towards Agriculture Insurance premium amount for 4-04 acres as per Ex.A-2 Bank statement from the complainant under Pradhan Manthri Fasal Bhima Yojane (PMFBY) scheme year 2016-17. Unfortunately, due to failure of rain, crops have not grown, completely failed. Therefore, the complainant approached to OPs several times and also submitted written request letter to OP Bank. The opponent Bank without paying the insurance amount, did not give adequate reply.

 

14. It is the contention of opposite party No.1 that, the complaint nowhere mentions the proposal number, which is one of the basic credentials to identify a policy issued under the PMFBY or RSWBCI scheme. In the absence of proposal number, the answering OP is not in a position to identify any details of the farmer/Complainant. Being so, it is impossible for the OP to find the individual famer details or to cross check the details or confirm the coverage. It is pertinent to mention that the complainant as per the list of documents forming part of the complaint states that 2 Xerox copy of the view proposal form and Back A/c form, however, the proposal copy nor proposal number is not filed/mentioned.

 

15. OP-2 submits that the OP-2 has not paid the crop insurance premium within time as per the guidelines of the Government of Karnataka as per the information given by the previous Branch Manager and also previous filed officer. The OP-2 has debited the crop insurance premium amount of Rs.10,492/- on 15/07/2017. The complainant has not furnished the proof of growing of Pomegranates i.e., Dalimbe Crops to the OP-2 at the time of submitting the application for crop insurance, as per the RTC copies of the complainant, there is no crops information of Dalimbe crop for the years 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19, the land of the complainant shows there are no crops information of the previous years and then shows the Ragi crops it is clearly deems that the complainant has not grown or trying to grow any Pomegranates i.e., Dalimbe Crops in his land. Moreover, there is no any reports or information of the Revenue Authorities of Hosadurga Taluk, Chitradurga District in respect of the growing or grown of Dalimbe crops.

16. The crux of the matter in the present case is whether the complainant has been able to prove in the complaint and whether the complainant has made an effort to convince us to declare the village drought-prone by the appropriate authorities? But the complainant has not submitted any document that the village has been declared as a drought affected village by the appropriate authorities. In view of the facts that no record is available in the complaint.

17. As per the available citation of the Hon’ble State Commission, Karnataka in the matter of …..

Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited Vs C. Venkataramana and others Appeal Nos.1863 to 1870 of 2018 reported in 2022 (1) CPR 1 (Karnataka)

    “Complainants were covered under the Crop Insurance Scheme, on failure of rain &  other related natural calamities, complainants have suffered loss- Amount unsettled – Complaint filed – OP’s were directed to pay Insured Amounts to the Farmers/Complainants-OP’s filed appeals against orders of District Commission.

 

       “Whether the Complainant/Farmers have furnished the required details with regard to the loss of their Insured Crop in their respective lands “Forum has not made efforts to get the Report with regard to the alleged loss of the Insured Crops assessed by the OPs. On examination of the records, we could not find any Report with regard to the loss of Crop submitted by the Government. In the absence of such particulars, awarding compensation by the District Commission/Forum on hypothetical basis cannot survive.  In order to award compensation on the basis of assessment of loss of crop suffered by each one of the Farmer/Complainant, some evidence is required – Therefore, remanded to the District Commission to re-consider afresh”

 

18. In view of the authority referred to above, we are of the considered opinion that, complaint nowhere mentions the proposal number, which is one of the basic credentials to identify a policy issued under the PMFBY scheme also the complainant has not produced any supporting documents of area survey report, crop failure report and short rain fall report from the concerned departments in support of his claim. So, there is no deficiency in service by OPs. The present case lies in the question whether the complainant is able to prove his contention, and that whether complainant has done any effort to convince us as to the declaration by the village of Rangenahally, as hit by the drought by appropriate authorities. The obvious answer is “No”.  The complainant has failed to prove declare the village drought-prone by the appropriate authorities. Hence the Point No.1 and 2 is answered in the Negative. 

 

19. Point No.3:  We perused all the documents produced by both the parties. Ex.A-2 is Bank Statement its clearly shows that, the complainant is paid insurance premium amount to OP-2 Bank.
OP-2 stated in the version that the complainant is eligible for reimbursement or return of Crop Insurance Premium collected by him moreover, OP-2 has admitted in his dispute that the complainant has paid Rs.10,492/-.  Therefore, he is entitled to recover the premium amount of Rs.10,492/- paid by the complainant. Therefore, the complainant is eligible for reimbursement or return of Crop Insurance Premium amount. Hence we considered as point No.3 is in the affirmative.

 

20. Point No.4:  Hence, in the light of above discussion we proceed to pass the following.

::ORDER::

    The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is hereby partly allowed.

  It is ordered that, the OP No.1 and 2 are jointly or severally hereby directed to pay sum of Rs.10,492/- to the complainant i.e., insurance premium amount paid by the complainant along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of complaint till its realization.

It is further ordered that, the OP No.2 is hereby directed to pay Rs.3,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.3,000/- towards costs of this proceedings to the complainant.

Complaint has against the OPs No. 3 is hereby dismissed.

 

      Communicate the order to both the parties.

 

(Typed directly on the computer to the dictation given to stenographer, the transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced by us on 29^th May 2023.)

 

 

 

Sd/-                                                               Sd/-

  MEMBER                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

-:ANNEXURES:-

 

 

Witness examined on behalf of Complainant:

 

 

PW-1:- Sri K.B. Ramesh W/o K. Bhyrappa, by way of affidavit of

           evidence.

 

Witness examined on behalf of opponents:

 

 

OP-1: Sri Leo John S/o Mr. Andrews, V.L., by way of affidavit of

          evidence.

 

OP-2: Sri Vineeth S/o Somanathan Nair, by way of

          affidavit of evidence.

 

OP-3: Sri P. Ramesh kumar, Joint Director, Agriculture Department,

         Chitradurga.

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

 

01	Ex-A-1:-	Xerox copy of Adharcard
02	Ex-A-2:-	Bank pass book Xerox copy,
03	Ex-A-3:-	RTC copy
04	Ex-A-4:-	Legal Notice
05	Ex-A-5:-	Postal receipts

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Documents marked on behalf of opponents:

 

 

01	Ex-B-1:-	Application form/Proposal form Xerox
02	Ex-B-2:-	RTC copies
03	Ex-B-3:-	Statement of Account dated 20/12/2019
04	Ex-B-4:-	Karnataka Government Secretariat Notification dated 10/04/2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

      Sd/-                                                               Sd/-

  MEMBER                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

**GM